Many previous posts have refuted the analysis, conclusions, prescriptions and methods of doom mongers. The main defect in methodology is to seek to control systems so as to force them to conform with an ideal, the cybernetic blunder first discussed here in Mental Tools. The main defect in prescription is that systems should be changed to match an ideology, overlooking the value of the existing system. The main defect in conclusions is that systems are dysfunctional.

But even if the conclusions, prescriptions and methods of doom mongers were improved they would still be unhappy because they analyze by finding fault. Everything is faulty by some metric so there is an inexhaustible supply of them that can never be corrected. In a sense their goal is to justify their unhappiness and cause unhappiness for others who foolishly fail to grasp the coming doom.

There's an almost humorous exercise in gloomiphilia (don't laugh, it's unseemly) in a recent book The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, reviewed in this wordlchanging post by Nicole-Anne Boyer.

The logic explaining why we are unhappy and uneasy in world of choices seems counter-intuitive, because choice is good, right? Well, not so fast. The argument goes something like this: The more options we have, the more information and effort we have to go into evaluating them, the more likely we are to be dissatisfied with the outcome.

The book, as the post explains, develops the idea that more is less by enumerating the problems caused by having and making choices about trivial things.

The trouble is that we, in the rich West, are spending too much time going through this cycle making trivial choices. That we have too much of a good thing. He cites research which tracks the relationship between well-being and choice. These two factors are highly corelated and rise together over time, but after a certain point, they become decoupled— the law of diminishing returns kicks it. More becomes less. In fact, most research tells us that happiness, across most cultures, is largely unrelated to material well-being after people pass the subsistence level of existence. Of course, we have billions of people who are still at this dismal level. Still too many people without many choices. And I believe on a larger ecological scale we are collectively eroding future choices and options for sustainable living.

Interestingly, the author links the explosion of depression over the last few decades as related to the vertigo of choice, that this may be contributing to extra stress, anxiety and uncertainty in people's lives.

Unconvincing. In some rich cultures there is a lot of depression and unhappiness, but blaming this on too much choice overlooks more compelling explanations including this one, Counting Blessings Versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily Life. [via Bryan Caplan at Marginal Revolution]

The effect of a grateful outlook on psychological and physical well-being was examined. In Studies 1 and 2, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental conditions (hassles, gratitude listing, and either neutral life events or social comparison); they then kept weekly (Study 1) or daily (Study 2) records of their moods, coping behaviors, health behaviors, physical symptoms, and overall life appraisals. In a 3rd study, persons with neuromuscular disease were randomly assigned to either the gratitude condition or to a control condition. The gratitude-outlook groups exhibited heightened well-being across several, though not all, of the outcome measures across the 3 studies, relative to the comparison groups. The effect on positive affect appeared to be the most robust finding. Results suggest that a conscious focus on blessings may have emotional and interpersonal benefits.

Caplan points out that unhappiness correlates with, well, unhappiness regardless of material well being once minimums have been achieved. People with lots of choices, even trivial choices, are happy when the have a personal outlook that is thankful for their good fortune. Given the prevalence of political philosophies, ideologies and cultural norms that emphasize negatives - envy, spite, impending catastrophe etc. - it's understandable that people sympathetic to these views are never satisfied no matter how much they get.

Almost all redistributive rhetoric urges people to dwell on the negative - you or other people aren't getting what is due. This in turn makes people want to "do something" about the problem. And you can rest assured that no matter how much redistribution there is, egalitarians will never say "OK, life's fair now. We're done complaining." No, what they foster is literally a lifestyle of ingratitude - a recipe for unhappiness.

If we really want to make people happier, we would do almost the opposite. Tell people to be grateful for what the market gives them, and try to emulate more successful people instead of envying them. Children hear this all the time, and it is damn good advice. Adults should practice what they preach.

It's an interesting and seemingly paradoxical issue. It may well be true that something is unfair in your life or that of others, but the best way to correct that is to focus on things that are good in life, strive to do better, and encourage others to do so as well. It not only relieves unhappiness it improves circumstances which are cited as causes for unhappiness. Ungrateful living leads to unending unhappiness no matter how things change while grateful living achieves happiness quickly and change more rapidly. There's a Grateful Dead joke in there some where but it eludes me.

Updated a short time later:

Hah.

The report titled "The Scots May Be Brave, But They Are Neither Healthy Nor Happy," published by the Scottish Economic Policy Network (Scotecon), analyzed data from several sources, some encompassing 30 years of information, including Labour Force Surveys (quarterly UK labor market reports), Eurobarometer records (the public opinion arm of the European Commission), and the UK Office of National Statistics.

"We usually think that a strong economy leads to an increase in life satisfaction among the population," says Blanchflower, the Bruce V. Rauner Professor at Dartmouth and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. "We found that's not the case in Scotland."

According to the report, the people of Scotland have experienced an improved standard of living in recent decades, and they have a low crime rate compared with the rest of the UK. Plus, since 1999, Scotland has had its own Parliament, which according to the authors, should positively influence the population's attitudes toward happiness and well-being. Despite these factors, the people of Scotland have seen no increase in life satisfaction...

The report also compared Scotland's happiness with other European countries, and found that Germans, French and Italians are even less satisfied with life, while the Scandinavian population scored remarkably higher in life satisfaction.

Hmmmm, sort of fits the traditional image of the dour Scotsman as well as the complaint culture images of the Germans and French. Speaking of the Culture of Complaint, parts of the US are affected too.

Update:

Ronald Bailey takes a few whacks at the more is less trope as well as the author Barry Schwartz who has sinned in the past as well.

Update:

See this interesting sounding paper, Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different?, at the Social Science Research Network [via Zoo Station]

Abstract:

The answer to the question posed in the title is "yes." Using a total of 128,106 answers to a survey question about "happiness," we find that there is a large, negative and significant effect of inequality on happiness in Europe but not in the US. There are two potential explanations. First, Europeans prefer more equal societies (inequality belongs in the utility function for Europeans but not for Americans). Second, social mobility is (or is perceived to be) higher in the US so being poor is not seen as affecting future income. We test these hypotheses by partitioning the sample across income and ideological lines. There is evidence of "inequality generated" unhappiness in the US only for a sub-group of rich leftists. In Europe inequality makes the poor unhappy, as well as the leftists. This favors the hypothesis that inequality affects European happiness because of their lower social mobility (since no preference for equality exists amongst the rich or the right). The results help explain the greater popular demand for government to fight inequality in Europe relative to the US. [emphasis added]

Also see the Spring 2004 issue of Dædalus titled On Happiness.